M
Why is it that Catholics want assisted suicide to be illegal?
- Status
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Honestly, I can’t reply to all of these posts and I can’t really be bothered to, either. Though I will say to St. Francis that I rather doubt Nazi Germany would be considered a democracy by many people. You also completely ignored Pratchett’s metaphor regarding the monster eating the man. Pratchett has Alzheimers. If it gets too serious, he won’t be able to live the life he wants to live. He won’t be able to write, and he’ll have to get other people to care for him on a daily basis. That’s not a life he wants to live, or wants to have to live.
Vera Dicere, no one is suggesting that we systematically execute the ill. Pratchett wants to die. Forcing him to live in his condition, as far as he’s concerned, would be more demeaning than being killed. Pratchett isn’t even being cared for that much. He’s still writing, though I believe he needs some help to go along with it.
I would also like to add that I am not judging the value of anyone’s life through a “utilitarian threshold”. Rather, I believe Pratchett is in ownership of his own life, and thus should be the judge of when it has or doesn’t have value. I don’t really see how you or I could decide for him. As I’ve already mentioned, Pratchett doesn’t want to have to suffer the indignity of soiling himself and forgetting his family. He’d rather die.
Vera Dicere, no one is suggesting that we systematically execute the ill. Pratchett wants to die. Forcing him to live in his condition, as far as he’s concerned, would be more demeaning than being killed. Pratchett isn’t even being cared for that much. He’s still writing, though I believe he needs some help to go along with it.
Oh, dear. Even Catholics judge the value of human life through a utilitarian threshold, just to a lesser extent. Catholics on here have stated that they’d be fine with capital punishment for anyone committing murder. You judge the value of people’s lives by their actions, rather than simply regarding all life as having value.
I would also like to add that I am not judging the value of anyone’s life through a “utilitarian threshold”. Rather, I believe Pratchett is in ownership of his own life, and thus should be the judge of when it has or doesn’t have value. I don’t really see how you or I could decide for him. As I’ve already mentioned, Pratchett doesn’t want to have to suffer the indignity of soiling himself and forgetting his family. He’d rather die.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Wow, polite way to respond… Not!!! Posters “bothered” to try to answer your question; you don’t need to respond individually to each one but you could at least thank them rather than saying you “can’t be bothered” to respond!
I didn’t say it was, and I can’t be blamed for the ignorance of others.
I didn’t totally ignore it; I responded to it specifically.
Many people have to live lives they don’t chose. In fact, those people who commit the icky kind of suicide that Pratchett disapproves of are basically saying they don’t want to live the life they’re living, and yet Pratchett disapproves of *their *suicides.
You asked why Catholics do not believe that “assisted suicide” in cases which you and Pratchett approve of is not all right and should not be legally allowed. We tried to answer that question.
I would hate to find out I had Alzheimer’s. I know it would be terribly difficult for me and esp for my family. My mother’s best friend of 40 years died after several years of increasing dementia, and I have known other families which have had to deal with elderly relatives with Alzheimer’s. However, the fact that there is suffering involved should be *dealt with, *not set aside by an “acceptable” suicide.
I am sorry that Pratchett has Alzheimer’s; but I believe that his advocacy of legalizing suicide in certain cases is wrong, and I am not inclined to change my mind about this merely because this is a sad story. There are many sad stories, what we must do is to strive to alleviate the suffering rather than to do the wrong thing as a response to our emotional reaction.
M
manualman
Guest
This is an excellent refutation of many version of American conservative argument and certain types of right-leaning cafeteria catholics. But actual catholic teaching is not what you seem to imagine. The catechism clearly states that capital punishment cannot morally be prescribed with the intent of vengeance or punishment, but that it is only permissible if it is judged to be the only reliable means of protecting the populace against a criminal otherwise likely to cause further harm. This is an awfully high bar and the two most recent popes have (unofficially) opined that it all but precludes capital punishment in politically stable and industrialized societies. This precisely because their crimes do NOT eradicate their intrinsic human dignity.
Observant argument though!
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
You people on here are very sensitive. I’m used to being on internet forums where people are generally a bit more laid back. It’s banter, is all. Though I do apologise if I offended you. I wasn’t trying to be rude, or trying to insult anyone. I certainly don’t dislike any of you on here, and I very rarely intend to put any malice into what I write. Honest. So, I would like to apologise to anyone I offended. I was not stating that I had not read or considered your posts.
Oh, burn. You made a reference to Germany in your last post addressing Pratchett’s claims about ill people being executed, and I assumed you were making a reference to Operation T4.
Okay. Thank you. You’ve answered my question, and I thank you for that. I don’t agree with you, but frankly we could discuss this for eons to come, and we’d never reach any point of agreement.
I’d like to thank everyone else who posted, too. Not only did you answer my question, but you actually offered me a much more diverse list of reasons than I expected.
E
empantarhei
Guest
point one, absolutely; but people will suffer at a greater rate than we can “deal with” though I am not advocating assisted suicide.
point two, there are many sad stories, what we must do is strive at a greater rate to eradicate this insidious disease, and of course, many others. But the fact remains, there will be more suffering than curing for a very long time. Again, I am not advocating assisted.suicide. But consider the patients and how tortured they must feel. WE CAN’T. How can that not be an emotional trial on all involved? How can it not?
My mother said, “I am done, I’ve had enough,” and she was gone. A blessing, I think, one between God and my mother.
Even if it were somehow acceptable by all, all the way around, I’d hate to be the assistant. I’d always wonder.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I think I was not clear. What I meant was that people suffer in many different ways, Alzheimer’s included, but many other ways, young people paralyzed in accidents, old people in nursing homes with no visitors, victims of violent crimes… and that we need to try to alleviate the suffering and to help people through it psychologically, but that we should not base laws on our emotional reactions to these sad situations. It would not be right for Pratchett’s fans, distressed by his plight, to then advocate the evil of euthanasia or suicide.
When making laws or public policy, we must not be swayed by emotion.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Sometimes it’s hard to tell one’s tone of voice over the internet. I’ve had the same thing happen to me and I’m sorry I didn’t understand that you were joking
[quite]Oh, burn. You made a reference to Germany in your last post addressing Pratchett’s claims about ill people being executed, and I assumed you were making a reference to Operation T4.
I was referring to the fact that so many people got caught up in what was happening precisely because they could not believe it would ever happen in Germany, not just the killing of the handicapped but the round-up of so many whom the Nazis didn’t like or disagreed with.
Sometimes these conversations do not result in anyone’s mind being changed, but it is good for all to participate. For me at least, the learning often goes both ways.
E
empantarhei
Guest
No, you were clear; it was me. I am ultra sensitive to the Alzheimer’s side of this coin. Dad is going through it now, too…
I apologize…
Still, I cannot help but think how we cannot check our emotions at the lawmakers’ doors.
We should strive, of course, but very difficult to do since we are humans first; a mother’s impassioned plea to get better laws regarding drunk drivers, for example; 20 sets of parents as well, for gun laws, and the list could go on and on and…
B
Bradski
Guest
Scenario One: Old lady alone in a nursing home. Suffering discomfort. No visits from her family. Desperately depressed with nothing to look forward to and she dreads waking up each day. She wants to end it all to save herself the misery and everyone else the bother.
Scenario Two: British soldier comes across an enemy soldier horribly burnt but still barely alive. In terrible pain. It’s obvious to all that he will die before any help will arrive.
The first scenario happens countless times every day. Do we agree with her wanting to end her life? I’m not sure but I would tend to say no. The second scenario happened in the Falklands war and the British soldier shot the Argentinian to end his pain. Did he do the right thing. In this case, undoubtedly yes.
The problem is, there are so many varying scenarios between those two examples that make this such a difficult problem. There is no correct answer. But I personally would like to choose the manner and time of my own death.
Scenario Two: British soldier comes across an enemy soldier horribly burnt but still barely alive. In terrible pain. It’s obvious to all that he will die before any help will arrive.
The first scenario happens countless times every day. Do we agree with her wanting to end her life? I’m not sure but I would tend to say no. The second scenario happened in the Falklands war and the British soldier shot the Argentinian to end his pain. Did he do the right thing. In this case, undoubtedly yes.
The problem is, there are so many varying scenarios between those two examples that make this such a difficult problem. There is no correct answer. But I personally would like to choose the manner and time of my own death.
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE
Human life is the basis of all goods, and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all society. Most people regard life as something sacred and hold that no one may dispose of it at will, but believers see in life something greater, namely, a gift of God’s love, which they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful. And it is this latter consideration that gives rise to the following consequences:
- No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity.
- Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God’s plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must bear fruit already here on earth, but that finds its full perfection only in eternal life.
- Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan. Furthermore, suicide is also often a refusal of love for self, the denial of a natural instinct to live, a flight from the duties of justice and charity owed to one’s neighbor, to various communities or to the whole of society - although, as is generally recognized, at times there are psychological factors present that can diminish responsibility or even completely remove it. Jn. 15:14
James 2:11
For instance, Leviticus 24:17
'If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death." Which is scripture’s way of saying how serious to kill another person is to God
hopefully there is other bible verses one can find …
hope this helps
God bless You
L
livingwordunity
Guest
It’s explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
S
St_Francis
Guest
No need to apologize, I just thought I was not clear, I am sorry to hear about your father, and am sure it is very hard on all your family.
S
St_Francis
Guest
But at the same time, we also cannot continue to leave her alone…
To murder soneone is objectively a mortal sin; God will judge the man according to his dispositions.
I offer two considerations: one is that a person dying like that may have a moment in which to chose… but because his life was cut short by the other’s action, this moment didn’t have a chance to happen. Better would have been to comfort the dying man and attempt to bring his attention to Christ in his last moments.
I realize that this sounds harsh–the unharmed soldier obviously was doing the best he could–but this is precisely why discussing and learning about these situations *beforehand *is so important.
Another point i want to make is that we so often think we must use whatever technology we happen to have at hand. Suppose instead that the wounded and dying soldier was found by a farmer’s son who had no gun? The boy would have had no way of “putting the soldier out of his misery.” The boy might have run away, or he might have stumbled across the right thing to do simply because he didn’t have the option the soldier had.
However, this goes against Church teaching. To display such lack of trust in Christ is to put one’s own self over Him, to reject the love and mercy He gained for us by His own suffering and death on the cross. This of course can have eternal consequences…
W
wynnejj
Guest
Just from a practical standpoint, one has to look at it in the same vein as abortion policy. Make it legal, you make it socially acceptable. Before long it gains the status of being the socially responsible thing to do. Before long it gets government assistance as an entitlement. Just as we fight the war on poverty with a war on babies, we will fight the war for social security with a war on old folks. Why will it sell? Appeals to pragmatism. Just as the quality of the baby’s future coupled with adverse effect on the mother’s quality of life will be cited, so will the quality of the aged person’s life coupled with the adverse effect on the family’s quality of life be cited. The results will be the same as abortion policy … a boom in widespread taking of life for “pragmatism” sake. When a person is retired, many times the feeling of meaningful purpose in life is the real tragedy. If wealthy, catering to one’s pleasures does no more to fill this void than the poor person who cannot afford this pleasure. Many will opt for “early retirement”.
(But the real reason Catholics want assisted suicide to be illegal, especially on this forum, is because if Obama gets elected a third term(?!?!), we will lose half of CAF.
)
B
Bradski
Guest
Then if I’m in the position of the injured man, I sincerely hope the guy with the gun is an atheist.
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
As someone who has an incurable disease that prevents me from having a normal life, I will try to explain it.
A: If someone is suffering greatly and loses his dignity we ought to be able to mercy kill him.
B: Are you saying that his life is worth less than a normal person’s?
A: No, I am saying we ought to have mercy on him. So much suffering.
B: Would you be willing to mercy kill a depressed man?
A: No, because he has a mental illness.
B: So you are saying that a disabled person’s life is less valuable.
A: No, I am not–
B: So you would mercy kill someone who is not disabled?
A: If we can rule out depression, sure.
B: But people don’t want to die unless they despair of life. How can you rule out mental illness?
And now here is the rub. Disabled people despair because of social attitudes to infirmity and utilitarian attitudes to life. By the underlying view that you have that our lives are lesser, you drive us to despair.
A: If someone is suffering greatly and loses his dignity we ought to be able to mercy kill him.
B: Are you saying that his life is worth less than a normal person’s?
A: No, I am saying we ought to have mercy on him. So much suffering.
B: Would you be willing to mercy kill a depressed man?
A: No, because he has a mental illness.
B: So you are saying that a disabled person’s life is less valuable.
A: No, I am not–
B: So you would mercy kill someone who is not disabled?
A: If we can rule out depression, sure.
B: But people don’t want to die unless they despair of life. How can you rule out mental illness?
And now here is the rub. Disabled people despair because of social attitudes to infirmity and utilitarian attitudes to life. By the underlying view that you have that our lives are lesser, you drive us to despair.
- Status